nanog mailing list archives

Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 12:37:11 -0800

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:

Was it the politics of ipv6 that
this didn't get resolved in the 90's when it was a lot more tractable?


No, in the '90s we didn't have nearly the basis for looking ahead. We
might still have invented a new way to use IP addresses that required
a block that wasn't unicast. It was politics in the 2000's and the
2010's, as it is today.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill () herrin us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Current thread:

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- - - Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Francis Booth via NANOG (Nov 23)
    - Re: fun with TLDs and captive portals was, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Levine (Nov 23)
    - Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 20)
    - Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 20)
    - Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 20)
    - Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Chris Adams (Nov 20)
    - Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jim (Nov 20)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 20)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 20)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public james.cutler () consultant com (Nov 20)
    - RE: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Richard Irving (Nov 21)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Eliot Lear (Nov 21)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 21)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Greg Skinner via NANOG (Nov 22)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Eliot Lear (Nov 23)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 23)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public David Conrad (Nov 23)
    - Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 23)

(Thread continues...)